Forensic interpretation framework for body and gait analysis: feature extraction, frequency and distinctiveness

References

• Birch I, Nirenberg M, Vernon OBE W, Birch M. Forensic gait analysis: principles and practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press: Taylor and Francis Group CLC; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Macoveciuc I, Rando CJ, Borrion H. Forensic gait analysis and recognition: standards of evidence admissibility. J Forensic Sci. 2019;64(5):1294–1303. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seckiner D, Mallett X, Meuwly D, Maynard P, Roux C. 2019. Forensic gait analysis – morphometric assessment from surveillance footage. Forensic Sci Int. 296:57–66. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seckiner D, Mallett X, Roux C, Meuwly D, Maynard P. 2018. Forensic image analysis – CCTV distortion and artefacts. Forensic Sci Int. 285:77–85. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.01.024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langenburg GM. A critical analysis and study of the ACE-V process. University of Lausanne; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• ISO/IEC. 2021 Information technology – biometric performance testing and reporting. Part 1: Principles and framework. Reference number: ISO/IEC 19795-1:2021(E).
   Google Scholar
• Montani I, Marquis R, Anthonioz NE, Champod C. Resolving differing expert opinions. Sci Justice. 2019;59(1):1–8. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2018.10.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison GS, Thiruvaran T, Epps J. Estimating the precision of the likelihood-ratio output of a forensic voice comparison system. The speaker and Language Recognition Workshop; 2010 28 June – 1 July; Brno, Czech Republic.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen AM, Crowder CM, Ousley SD, Houck MM. Error and its meaning in forensic science. J Forensic Sci. 59(1);2013:123–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roux C, Bucht R, Crispino F, Forest PD, Lennard C, Margot P, Miranda M, NicDaeid N, Ribaux O, Ross A, et al. 2022. The Sydney declaration – revisiting the essence of forensic science through its fundamental principles. Forensic Sci Int. 332:1–10. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch I, Birch M, Rutler L, Brown S, Burgos LR, Otten B, Wiedemeijer M. 2019. The repeatability and reproducibility of the Sheffield features of gait tool. J Sci Justice. 59:544–551. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2019.04.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch I, Birch M, Lall J. The accuracy and validity of the Sheffield features of gait tool. J Sci Justice. 2021;61(1):72–78. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2020.08.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• (ENFSI) European Network of Forensic Science Institutes. Guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science. Strengthening the evaluation of forensic results across Europe (STEOFRAE), Version 3.0., 98. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• NIFS National Institute of Forensic Science Australia New Zealand. An introductory guide to evaluative reporting; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Champod C, Meuwly D. 2000. The inference of identity in forensic speaker recognition. J Speech Commun. 31:193–203. doi:10.1016/S0167-6393(99)00078-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann C, Evett IW, Skerrett J. Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2012;175(2):371–415. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2011.01027.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meuwly D, Veldhuis R. Forensic biometrics: from two communities to one discipline. 2012 BIOSIG - Proceedings of the International Conference of Biometrics Special Interest Group (BIOSIG). 2012: Darmstadt, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Seckiner D. The development and testing of a forensic interpretation framework for use on anthropometric and morphological data collected during stance and gait. University of Technology Sydney; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Seckiner D, Meuwly D, Roux C, Gittelson S, Maynard P, Mallett X. Dataset of distinctive extracted features for forensic evaluation of body stance and Gait. Data in Brief (submitted for publication); 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Kendall FP, McCreary EK, Provance PG, Rodgers MM, Romani WA. Muscles-Testing and function with posture and pain. 5th ed. Lippincott: Williams and Wilkins; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Seckiner D. Forensic Body Mapping: Morphometric Gait Analysis and Quantification of Associated CCTV Image Distortions [ Honours Thesis]. University of Technology Sydney, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Bradshaw C. Can Habitual Posture be a Unique Identifier in ‘Body Mapping’ Identification? Honours Thesis. The University of Sydney, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Wright J (2012). Mapping 'Habitual Posture' for Morphometric Gait Analysis. Honours thesis, University of Technology Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Arroyo M, Freire M, Ansotegui L, Rocandio AM. Intraobserver error associated with anthropometric measurements made by dietitians. J Nutricion Hospitalaria. 2010;25(6):1053–1056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goto R, Mascie-Taylor CGN. Precision of measurement as a component of human variation. J Physiol Anthropol. 2007;26(2):253–256. doi:10.2114/jpa2.26.253
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. J Fam Med. 37;2005:360–363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurande K, Waagepetersen R, Egon T, Prasad R. 2013. Reliability studies of diagnostic methods in Indian traditional Ayurveda medicine: An overview. J Ayurveda Integr Med. 4(2):67–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Perini TA, Oliveira GL, Ornellas JS, Oliveira FP. Technical error of measurement in anthropometry. Barz J Sports Med. 11;2005:86–90.
   Google Scholar
• Birch I, Raymond L, Christou A, Fernando MA, Harrison N, Paul F. 2013. The identification of individuals by observational gait analysis using closed circuit television footage. Sci Justice. 53:339–342. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2013.04.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veres, G,Gordon, L,Carter, J andNixon, M (2004). What image information is important in silhouette-based gait recognition. IEEE Comput Vis Pattern Recognit conference, Washington. 776–782.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao G, Liu G, Li H, Pietikainen M. 2006. 3D gait recognition using multiple cameras. 7th International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FGR06). 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Cardoso JR, Pereira LM, Iversen MD, Ramos AL. What is the gold standard and what is ground truth? Evidence-based Orthod. 2014;19(5):27–30.
   Google Scholar
• Meuwly D, Ramos D, Haraksim R. 2017. A guideline for the validation of likelihood ratio methods used for forensic evidence evaluation. Forensic Sci Int. 276:142–153. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.03.048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar